Site Search Navigation

Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Supported by

Senator Clinton: Compromise “Not a Dirty Word”

By Patrick Healy January 31, 2007 1:03 pmJanuary 31, 2007 1:03 pm

At a conference devoted to “big ideas” for the nation’s future, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said this morning that compromise need to be “a goal – not a dirty word” in politics and government, remarks that reflect her own pragmatic style but that are more moderate than the views of some of her rivals and hard-core elements of the Democratic primary electorate.

With some of her 2008 presidential opponents offering sharply partisan messages, and another of them, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, seeking to transcend partisanship, Mrs. Clinton staked her place in the middle of the political rhetoric as she tries to appeal to broad swaths of the American electorate – even at the risk of alienating some Democratic primary voters.

“I don’t think Americans are looking for some kind of group-hug bipartisanship – I think they’re looking for leaders who can get back to reality-based policy-making,” she said at the New America Foundation’s “Ten Big Ideas for a New America” conference in Washington, a few blocks from the Capitol.

“The answer is not that we’re going to get rid of partisanship — as long as there are human beings jousting for influence and position, they’re going to take all kinds of opposing, partisan stances,” she said. “But it does mean that we can be smarter about how to narrow the differences between partisan ideas, and try to eliminate the partisan gamesmanship.”

“We have to reinvigorate the public debate and make a compromise a goal – not a dirty word,” she added a few minutes later, “because that’s how we’ve made progress historically – by looking for that common ground that we can stake out together.”

Mr. Obama, in particular, has inveighed against partisanship and portrayed himself as a kind of trans-partisan politician who offers a more hopeful, unifying brand of leadership. “Politics has become so bitter and partisan,” he said in his campaign kick-off speech on January 16, “so gummed up by money and influence, that we can’t tackle the big problems that demand solutions.”

Former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, who has been the most assertive Democratic candidate in seeking an end to new funding for the Iraq war and withdrawal of troops, has insisted recently that Democrats stand up for their own vision and avoid compromising their moral authority on political issues like opposing the war.

Mrs. Clinton came to the “big ideas” conference without any new big policy ideas of her own to unveil, quipping that to do so would take hours. The matter of big ideas has loomed over her candidacy; the Atlantic magazine profiled her last year for a cover story that essentially concluded that Mrs. Clinton was lacking in big ideas, and that she was locked into pragmatic, incremental policy-making instead.

She and her aides have hinted lately that she will unveil a major new health care initiative soon, however, and this morning she touched upon some of her long-standing big ideas – support for universal health care and for financial aid policies to lower the cost of college and broaden access to higher education.

More broadly, too, she said that the government needed to reassert its “can-do” spirit in solving big problems.

“There’s also a troubling strain of fatalism in a lot of our debate, particularly over the last 6 years. ‘Why can’t we deal with our energy crisis? It would wreck out economy’ – end of debate,” she said.

“Why can’t we deal with health care? ‘Well look what happened to Hillary Clinton when she tried. Nobody wants to walk into that swampland again,’ she said to laughter. “Well, no, actually, we learned a lot about would and would not work, and that’s how you make better policy – learn from experience.

“Probably the biggest idea of all is that American has always been about the future that’s who we are. Some have actually criticized us, even made fun of us, because we don’t spend a lot of time wringing our hands about the past. On an individual level, and as a society, we are always focused on the future. I want us to get there again.”

Mrs. Clinton also favorably remarked upon the efforts of a potential Republican rival for the White House, former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, to work with Democratic lawmakers to broaden access to health care in that state. She did not mention him by name, but referred to Mr. Romney and to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California as two Republican leaders who are working on the health coverage issue.

In reference to Senator Clinton’s big idea speech, America should not expect any “big idea(s)” from any politician in this election, despite the overwhelming need of public idealism. By public I mean government. Principles do not, and therefore should not, change; but practices do. Our laws, void of partisanship to any political party, are well-founded and just–regardless of the unjust men and women who may execute them. However, practices of the law (or policies) are fluid and arbitrary. We can incorporate new ideas, policies, and not uproot the flower and surpremacy of our law. The magic trick is the balance and working coalition of the two. Our fundamental perceptions of America need be one, and our individual “big ideas” on how to apply them should vary. This assimilation of pride and loyalty, empathy and intelligence, without affection, always leads to “reality-based policy making.”

Edwards, Obama, Hillary,the best and the leftist, the democratic party`s hope to take over power and keep big business exporting good jobs and peonizing the middle class.
Hillary will follow Bill`s plan for prosperity, globalism that makes the property values soar at Martha`s Vineyard and the Hamptons and plummet in Youngstown. This entire group of unhopefulls considers lower middle class white men as mis-anthropes worthy only for guests shots on the ” King of Queens. ” They do not realize that this voting block that left them after Ivy League Lexus liberals stole the party in 1988 is just begging to come home after years of pandering at the hands of phoney baloney big business hacks.
Hillary is just mildy vexed by Barak Hussein Obama`s wind mill tilt. She and the rest of her ilk fear only one man and that is Senator James Webb, America`s William Wallace/Abraham Lincoln hybred.
Charles B. Tiffany
Kissimmee, Florida

Compromise on WHAT??? And what, specifically, IS the compromise in question?

Answer those two questions and THEN we’re in a position to evaluate a compromise.

The question of “compromise” in general is an utterly and absolutely meaningless one outside of a specific context. Yes, one could write an essay on the abstractions and hypotheticals…but there’s a word for that, and it ain’t practical politics.

No one knows more about compromising with terrorists than the Clintons. The World Trade Center was bombed early in their administration and what did they do?
Compromised with the terrorists and let them loose and ready for 9/11. Just exactly what did the Clintons do to protect this nation? Nothing, nothing, notwithstanding their paid blogs. If we want to compromise with terrorists, then the Clintons are a perfect duo.

Reading Tiffiany’s rant reminds me of what Mrs.Clinton was alluding to BI-PARTIANSHIP,something that has eluded the Senat,and the House for 6years under this administration, as for the jobs lost? hmmmm more went overseas under this presidet than under the Clinton administration.

Of course he’s entitled to rant,thats what the first amendment garuntees,But! at least be honest with the other readers of this site, that indeed your more partisan than what you would have others to percieve.

Yes Mr Webb is a boots to the ground type of guy and definetly has the credentials to run as a middle of the road type of canidate, He is still a converted republican,whose tendicies are just that, A Republican; who are more Pro Business than what the Democrats are? get real I at least want the Opprotunity to hear all the participants put forth their agendas for the country and what they see are the issues at hand,and how they would address them before spitting fur balls into the wind.

Mrs Clinton didnt have any impact on Forgien Policy issues as a first lady, nor did she offshore all the jobs that were lost due NAFTA or whatever, she at least has to given the opprotunity to put forth her agenda as well as all the others.

She is her own person,In case you hadnt noticed,Webb has to be looking over his shoulder as well.
The 800lb Gorilla in the room hasnt Hiccuped yet,

(GORE), then all of them will be looking over their shoulders looking for the steamroller.

On a related subject of compromise, Bush agreed to spent time here today at Wall Street provided the FEDS wouldn’t raise ShortTerm Interests Rates. Both the DJ and NASDAQ jumped up and everybody is happy.

after the sound bites ive heard of hillary flip floping all over the place i wish she would just go away and take that kook husband with her.she is plain out lieing about verything that comes out of her mouth.and if the nytimes gave a crap about this counrty or the people in it they would tell the whole story not just what they want you to know.the people at the nytimes are a disgrace to this country.these sound bites of hillary can be found at youtube.check them out and se for yourself what the kooks at the nytimes are not telling you about hillary

In response to post #6 on this thread, please read your recent history before posting about what was and was not done on Bill Clinton’s watch as well as George Bush’s watch.

Read Richard Clarke’s now infamous memo to Condoleeza Rice dated January 25, 2001 (not a week into the Bush tenure) urging that a plan to deal with al Queda be drawn up. His memo is relatively detailed and he stresses the importance of the issues surrounding al Queda. It has been revealed that that meeting did not happen until the month of September 2001.

As secretive as this bunch has been, I’m surprised that they even allowed such an embarrassing piece of evidence of their neglect to be declassified.

You should also take a look at Bill Clinton’s interview on Fox News from a few months ago that was supposed to be about the Clinton Global Initiative. The pundits loved talking about how he “flew off the handle,” but if you listen to his words, he’s rebutting the history the mainstream media has allowed the Republicans to inject into Clinton’s history. And he does so quite convincingly.

If you take a look at history, not only did the Bush administration fail to prevent 9/11 on THEIR watch, but also after they did not send enough troops to Afghanistan to capture Bin Laden, they turned the might of our military on a country that did not have anything to do with the attacks of 9/11. And now we have an over-budget war in Iraq and Al Quaeda is now STRONGER.

The Republicans need to remember that, saying it doesn’t make it so! We need more than a Resident in the White House.

Remember everyone, in November 2008, the U.S., as a country, is not better off than it was before George Bush walked into the White House. And those who believe the same things he does, that the rich need to be richer without the other classes getting a fair shake, that war is okay, even without reason, should not be put into the White House ever again.

Compromise is not a problem when someone has clear goals and strong principals to begin with. Hilary does not. Just like Bill flounder in the years before there was a Republican majority in Congress that could could simply oppose, without worrying about his own goals, so too Hilary is better in tactical discussions and compromise than in visions and goals. Like Bill, she’s likely willing to compromise over any goal and hold not principals or people dear. She is a trimmer. She’s not intellectually or philosphically dependable; her cause is herself. She’s loyal to getting elected, nothing more. It should be a wonderful “national conversation” as we talk about her.

How do you compromise with a Zealot who 100% believes what he is doing is the will of God?

Sounds like Mrs Clintons usually non-directional, wishy washy, anything to convince people I am middle of the road because thats what the polls say I need to be to win.

Its just a silly debate, I seem to remember the British prime minister arriving home from Germany having reached a compromise with Mr. Hitler claiming “Peace in our time” result World War 2.

Meaninless rubbish, why isnt she doing something about Iraq apart from listening to people arguing about meanileass non binding resolutions which Mr. Bush will not compromise on, he will totally ignore, you need 2 parties to make a compromise.

President Obama drew criticism on Thursday when he said, “we don’t have a strategy yet,” for military action against ISIS in Syria. Lawmakers will weigh in on Mr. Obama’s comments on the Sunday shows.Read more…